Nuke

so star trek is a dystopia now.

currently watching a series on youtube thats trying to make a point that for the cost of a high end racing sim setup, you could build an actual racecar.

gravitational influence seems to be the line of thinking in the iau definitions. hydrostatic equilibrium - enough gravity to be round planet - enough gravity to be round and to kick other things out of its orbit you could extend that to include giant planets, as those have enough gravity to be a huge influence in the entire solar system. that would be better and give you 3 distinct sub-categories for planets. all three would be planets though. i think flat out demoting pluto was the easy way out.

there is also rosk, resk, and the seldom used but very endearing rysk. changing barycenters doesnt seem like a problem if you treat each orbit as circular, but with equivalent net energy as the actual orbit. calculate what the barycenter would be in that situation. that should solve the problem of eccentricity. besides a moon is just one bad gravitational interaction from becoming an asteroid, a dwarf planet, or a rogue planet. an object might be multiple things throughout its life.

one would probably siphon off the gas of the other until just a stripped core remained, and it would become a moon.

well if you assume the plane is and will remain completely prependicular to the motion vector. and if you assume that impacts will be infrequent. but take this up to near relativistic speeds and every little hydrogen atom represents a lot of energy and the forces on the moon would be fairly consistent. assuming a prependicular starting condition, the first impulse will slant the orbit such that there will be a nonzero prograde component to the force vectors. it will be tiny and would take a long time to build up any meaningful orbital energy. there will also be natural plane tilt caused by the acceleration of the host planet. the moons will accelerate to keep up and this will tilt in the forward direction. impacts here translate into a retrograde component. managing throttle and velocity might find a breakeven point, but if you wanted to accelerate faster (and you would) you would have to re adjust the orbits of the moons to compensate for any prograde/retrograde force components. but hey if you are moving a gas giant, so you can probably figure it out and have the tech to make it work.

wouldnt the space debris hitting the moons do a plane change on them? as soon as the orbital plane wasn't perfectly perpendicular to the angle of motion, you would get a prograde/retrograde component. your orbits would either spiral out and you could lose them or spiral them into the roche limit. keeping them in place might require they have their own thrusters to cancel out any thrust they get from incoming space debris, which always hits one side.

the only fundamental difference between a moon and a planet is ultimately what it orbits around. so lets take my proposed planet hierarchy: in orbit of a stellar object: giant planets - high gravitational influence across multiple orbits or the whole solar system. jupiter for example. standard planets - gravitational influence over their own orbit only. earth for example. dwarf planets - not gravitationally dominant over its own orbit. ceres. planetoids - large objects that dont meet hydrostatic equilibrium requirement. eros. asteroids - small rocks in space in orbit of a sub-stellar object (anything listed above): giant moons - high gravitational influence over the moon system. the moon, ganymede. standard moons - dominant over local orbit only. includes shepherd moons in ring systems. tethys, mimas. moonoids/dwarf moons - captured asteroids, shepherd moons and other objects in ring systems. also anything that isnt in hydrostatic equilibrium. phobos. i couldnt really think of a major difference between dwarf moons and moonoids. so they got merged. i wanted to separate it between round and not round, but there is a lot of crossover and thought it was kind of arbitrary. moons in shared orbits tend to not be round. any of these can be considered binary if the barycenter is outside of the gravitationally dominants body. in this case pluto and charon would be a binary dwarf planet. charon would not be considered a moon in this case. im not sure how i would define moons of a binary planet system or deal with trinary planet systems (if they in fact exist). i figure any third object would need to contribute significantly to the barycenter to promote it to a trinary. say you place a truncated cone such the biggest object is at the big end and the small object is at the small end, if the 3rd body puts the barycenter inside that cone, then it is a moon, otherwise its a sibling planet. not sure how you would determine if an object in a trinary object system is a moon or not. but they have not been observed and we could buck that problem down the line until we do. pluto-charon moons therefore remain moons. binary+ moons would in theory be possible, but since one has not been observed to the best of my knowledge, its only theoretical. sub-moons might also be a thing, but they usually aren't in stable orbits and could be called transient objects. if we do find evidence of stable sub moons then we could figure those out at that time.

idk ive seen the case made (and the math for) gravitational dominance in the solar system. major planets or giant planets should be the major concentrations of mass in the solar system (other than stellar objects) which ultimately guide the motion of the rest of the solar system. and at the other end things that dont have much influence at all with planets actual in the middle.

just an opinion, not sure thats what the aiu indented though. yea i kind of think the needed to define everything as planets, and then categorize those better. dwarf planets get one, you might have another for giant planets and terrestrial planets. i think id reserve the term planetoid for large things that haven't quite made it to hydrostatic equilibrium.

its a dwarf planet, so yea. i view dwarf planets as a subset to planets. it even has the word planet in its classification.

just having your anti gravity engines operating asymmetrically can induce rotations. i think your real limits are structural. because a big structure is a complicated structure. you even run into this problem in ksp where you get huge oscillations that make things like docking and precision maneuvering impossible. huge cross sections make you susceptible to atmoshperic drag (in low orbits) not to mention space debris and dust at interstellar velocities.

you sure it was beer he was drinking?

as a mortal i always prefer building over buying, i figure being an immortal would just make more people do same. like i would rather have a built by hand amish desk than one out of a mass production facility. of course thats after the freebie '50s steel desk i found on the side of the road*. * getting it home and up the stairs was a massive undertaking, but it was junk and didnt mind the paint scraping off as i slid it up the metal grate stairs. i got it over here by using an old gardening cart that the previous tenants left in the shed as a makeshift dolly. i only had to move it 2 blocks but that was enough to reduce the gardening cart to splinters. the cats made short work of the family of mice living in one of the drawers. im always amazed by how often people throw away perfectly good things.

yea time travel has always glossed over the fact that things in space move.

when they do that at our place its usually just to inspect the fire equipment. i think its an insurance thing. they make sure the detectors all have batteries and make sure the fire extinguishers are full and that's the end of it. they also tell us that our unit is one of the cleanest in the complex. which is odd because i only really spot clean as needed and i sweep up all the cat hair every couple months (there's usually enough to make another cat).

dune 2020 is now dune 2021. they bucked it all the way to next october. stop stealin my escapeism.

maybe try orbiter, its free, though i cant speak to whether its flight model is better or worse, but it did have a huge number of mods. ksp still ranks as one of the most fun newtonian simulators ive played, but some allowances were made for that (moar boosters).

i guess a fudge factor (engineers call them coefficients) you can predict is called science. it always amazed me how aerospace engineers can reduce the complexities of fluid dynamics down to a couple of numbers.

bald kitties technically still have hair, its just very fine and velvety.

the airbus concepts use cryofuel, storing it in the fuselage. it has 3x the energy density of jet than jet fuel by weight despite being lower in volume, which provided you dont lose it all in additional weight of the tankage is better suited to an aircraft. the coldness of the fuel can also be use in a precooler if you wanted a hypersonic aircraft or as the cold side of any thermodynamic components, its effectively another form of energy storage.

hydrogen may be a better option for energy storage in aircraft than batteries. lets ignore the problems with hydrogen manufacture for a second. you need electrical power to recharge batteries as much as you do to make hydrogen though the latter is definitely going to be less efficient. when compared with fossil fuels, those have to be trucked from the refineries to the airports, where as hydrogen manufacture can take place close to the tarmac using local grid and water supply. the fossil fuels can be burned at the power plants where you get carbon capture and waste heat scavenging. there is a lot we can do to clean up the power grid in both the short and long term. meanwhile jet engines dump raw exhaust directly into the atmosphere. im curious what airbus can do with its hydrogen concepts.

do they react differently or is it that the motions do not accomplish the same thing while in freefall. the cat knows they need to turn but has no idea which way down is. in a normal fall that would become apparent quite quickly. its as if its trying to kill its rotation before it starts moving, but it never does. now that i think about it their fur would be able to sense the turbulence caused by aerodynamic drag. of course its the same problem with the inner ear. there is no data coming in, so the cat has no idea what to do in that situation. you expect a vector but it has zero magnitude.

ive always seen those zero g cat videos and always thought it was just flight crews screwing around. never knew it was actual science. later that day everyone on the flight crew found a dead rodent in their shoe. the inner ear is effectively a biological imu. when it reads zero, the kitty panics. i recently bought a new cat tower. but after a week of it being set up only 2 of the cats use it. i tried to introduce the 3rd to it. it wobbles quite a bit and she is a large cat. so when she goes about hitting the tower's resonant frequency with her attempts at regaining her balance she freaked out. she panicked and i got winged by an errant fistfull of razorblades. fortunately i trimmed her claws recently (they overgrow if left to their own devices and poke her toes), but i could have been scrambling for a bandage.

404 key not found ty again late.